Thread: News Week photo of Sarah Palin--Sexist or not?

Originally Posted by Swoop187

Palin will be POTUS or VP sometime in the next 20 years and I hope she destroys both the republicans and liberals as retribution.

Why do you hate America?

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Liberals are the ones keeping Palin in the spotlight as a presidential candidate and yet, I don't personally know anyone who would like to see her run. Maybe if y'all wouldn't get your panties in a wad at the mere mention of her name, she'd fade from the spotlight.

And until then she'll laugh or wink all the way to the bank

Originally Posted by compote_tom

And until then she'll laugh or wink all the way to the bank

I agree and don't blame her one bit!

Originally Posted by compote_tom

And until then she'll laugh or wink all the way to the bank

And kudos to her for that...

Originally Posted by Malvolio

Sexist? That's nothing but fake outrage. Sarah Palin is just another celebrity who wants to create media attention to sell more books. She quit her office, she even posed for this photo. Celebrities like Paris Hilton or Sarah Palin are a phenomenon of our time and the media seems to love them.

yes to an extent thats true, but thats not really the question....Obama sold books...so what?

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

My point was that Newsweek didn't design the doll but as to whether is sexist or not, it depends on the individual woman. I'm not a libber so those sort of things don't bother me and if it did, I wouldn't dress the way I do at almost 49 years old. Some women get offended if a guy describes them as a MILF, I laugh when I'm called a GILF by a 20-something-year-old. Palin strikes me as a woman who is confident in her sexuality and her ability to turn heads so I doubt she's really offended by the doll or the cover of Newsweek.

hey thats cool, so beating her down for it is just , well mastrubation, NOW would indeed go beserk if Gloria Berger or some other attractive liberal woman was a victim of same. Country boy is exactly right, if they made a doll along the lines of michelle obama, the heavens would fall.....

They did when hillary was villified all be it not on the lines that palin is, the left has the squack box and its open season, I am willing to bet that if they just stopped a lot of her populairty would fade, that never occurs to them because they love bneating up on her more than employing their common sense.........

Originally Posted by Angry American

Wouldn't do what to Leiberman or Kerry? I don't think Lieberman or Kerry would have posed for a picture like that. But Palin did. I think all your questions should be directed at her.

she posed for a running mag or some such sport mag.....

Originally Posted by John Drake

Please, please, PLEASE run her for Prez in 2012. A Palin/Dobbs ticket would be perfect.

America needs the end of the Republican Party once and for all. We literally just cannot take their shit any more

why? you're the one feeding it, you love it......so eat up.

Originally Posted by Imperator

hey thats cool, so beating her down for it is just , well mastrubation, NOW would indeed go beserk if Gloria Berger or some other attractive liberal woman was a victim of same. Country boy is exactly right, if they made a doll along the lines of michelle obama, the heavens would fall.....

They did when hillary was villified all be it not on the lines that palin is, the left has the squack box and its open season, I am willing to bet that if they just stopped a lot of her populairty would fade, that never occurs to them because they love bneating up on her more than employing their common sense.........

Sure people would go berserk if this was done to a liberal but I think it's all silly. Palin has chosen a career in politics, just as Hillary has, and people love to attack politicians and Palin and Hillary being women has just given them a little more ammo. Hillary should be a little jealous that no one has printed "sexist" pictures of her.

And at the same time, we should be all grateful for that too - remember that come Thursday everyone!

Originally Posted by Imperator

she posed for a running mag or some such sport mag.....

Oh, right, my bad. That being the case, then I think it shows very poor editorial judgement of Newsweek to put that picture on the cover. That was a cheap shot.

I will not defend their use of that picture for their cover, they didn't take it.

I will vote 'sexist' in this poll. But I think it's more a partisan slap, that has no place on the cover of Newsweek.

Yet are we really talking about stifling the freedom of the press?

Originally Posted by Angry American

Yet are we really talking about stifling the freedom of the press?

Not at all. It depends on how they acquired the photo. My understanding is that Newsweek didn't pay for the photo, nor does it appear as though they credited the photographer (which they'd have to do if they didn't get it directly from the photographer).

This has nothing to do with "stifling freedom of the press". It has to do with one magazine having such pathetic editorial standards that they would either steal a photograph from another magazine or, the best case scenario, they're unable to come up with an original idea.

My guess is that they wanted Palin on the cover, she told them to fuck off, so they did whatever they needed to in order to secure a photo that they believed portrayed her in a negative light.

What they accomplished, though, was showing a woman who's pretty damn sexy. Any guy who would say otherwise is likely a pole-smoker:



Sure the fuck looks better than this:



Freedom of the press does not permit theft...

Originally Posted by Steve

Not at all. It depends on how they acquired the photo. My understanding is that Newsweek didn't pay for the photo, nor does it appear as though they credited the photographer (which they'd have to do if they didn't get it directly from the photographer).

This has nothing to do with "stifling freedom of the press". It has to do with one magazine having such pathetic editorial standards that they would either steal a photograph from another magazine or, the best case scenario, they're unable to come up with an original idea.

My guess is that they wanted Palin on the cover, she told them to fuck off, so they did whatever they needed to in order to secure a photo that they believed portrayed her in a negative light.

What they accomplished, though, was showing a woman who's pretty damn sexy. Any guy who would say otherwise is likely a pole-smoker:



Sure the fuck looks better than this:



Freedom of the press does not permit theft...

Did they actually steal the photograph or did they find it online and download/copy it?